I'm new and have a question

Hello, I just stumbled across this site while looking up info on the german tanks of WW2. A little info on me I'm 22 and have always been a huge WW2 and Civil war buff...( I think thats the right term)..Anyways, I was always under the Impression that the german dominated the whole tank scene in WW2 and the only reason the shermans even stood a chance was because we had like 10 of them for every Panzar......and also that the Tiger was pretty much the god of tanks back then.....but after reading some....I'm confused. Some sites say that the Tiger really wasnt that great while others say that allied forces wouldnt even engage one if they saw it.....I'm not researching for any specific reason I just got in a tank mood lol. Any Insight on the whole German tank supremecy thing would be great. Ohhh and Hello and merry christmas!!

 

One thing you have to realize. Tigers were relatively rare, especially in the West. Only about 1200 were manufactured compared to 50,000 plus Shermans so the average allied tanker would never even encounter a Tiger. Tank for tank the Tiger was a superior AFV compared to a Sherman. The Tiger's 88 mm could kill the Sherman at ranges exceeding 1.5 kilometers whereas the low velocity 75 mm on (most ) Shermans needed to get very close and fire from the flank or rear to have much chance of killing a Tiger. A mobility kill could occur from much greater range of course but it would be extremely risky to be exposed to the 88 without cover/concealment.

 

Welcome to Fragmeister. The Tiger was not the only German tank that was superior to the Sherman. The Mark V Panther's gun was also better than the Sherman's, and was more survivable in general. Arguable, the Mark IV in its later versions was superior to the Sherman. On the other hand, German tanks were more difficult to produce and generally not as reliable as the Sherman. You also need to consider the experience factor with the Germans plus tactical doctrine and employment. I am a former "treadhead" (M60's to let you know I'm not real close to 22 years old) and loved those mommas.

 

in the early part of the war the german tanks were inferior to those of Poland and the UK, but they had the advantage of numbers.

 

Welcome to the forum, Fragmeister.

This is the essence of what has become known to me and several other forum members as "E-Germanism", an immense bias towards everything German that exists widely on internet fora of various kinds. It is a myth that the Germans had all the best equipment and "dominated the whole tank scene" during WW2, and this myth is powered by television documentaries (the History Channel, Discovery Channel) and overhyped but inaccurate other sources like "Death Traps" and Achtungpanzer.com.

In reality, German equipment of WW2 was of varying quality; in certain periods and against certain enemies they enjoyed advantages, in others disadvantages. Most of their advantages were very relative indeed, as were those enjoyed by other countries during the war; the 88mm on the Tiger was more than equalled by Allied guns by the end of the war, for example. When you realize that the Germans enjoyed only temporary advantages you can start to look at phenomenons such as the Tiger tank more realistically.

All too often the Tiger is compared to the early Sherman, a comparison in which the latter is undeniably inferior in terms of armour protection and firepower. This comparison is based on a number of flawed presuppositions, though. First of all, the Tiger was not the German Main Battle Tank, like the Sherman for the Americans. Less than 1500 Tigers were ever made, against 10,000 Panzer IVs and 6,000 Panthers which were therefore much more common in German armies of the day. Second, the early Sherman with its 75mm gun wasn't the only Sherman type ever produced; by the end of the war, almost half of the American army's Shermans had become late versions with more powerful guns, armour comparable to that of the Tiger from the front, and various technological innovations the Germans never even introduced at all. Thirdly, a direct encounter between a Sherman and a Tiger ignores the realities of a battlefield; by late 1942, when the Tiger was introduced, the Allies were beginning to take the initiative in the war, fuelled by a superiority in resources, air power and the amount of equipment available. Hence it is only fair to compare one Tiger to three, four or even a dozen Shermans or T34s backed up by considerable amounts of planes and artillery pieces as well as infantry.

It should be clear from the above that the Tiger was much more impressive when it first appeared, when the Allies lacked specifically designed equipment to counter it. Over time even this tank was overtaken by technological developments introduced by the Allies. Admittedly the Tiger was one of those designs that sparked developments by its very existence, but when these new designs were brought to the battlefield (tanks armed with better guns, protected with more armour) the effect of Tigers and Panthers was significantly reduced.

Also I can guarantee you that for every story of a Tiger or Panther knocking out a complete armoured column or something like that, there is a story of units of Tigers or Panthers completely destroyed by Allied use of combined arms, flanking tactics, or even simply superior weaponry.

 

Roel that post was pretty much the information I've been looking for. I guess for some reason or the other today I just decided to look into the whole Tiger tank myth. I mean... it must have done something right if even today its still a legend in terms of being feared in the latest video games, documetaries (spelling?). I knew that the Tiger wasnt the main battle tank but it seemed to have this "thing" about it lol. I guess I just finally wanted to find out about this Supertank and see how badass it really was. thanks for the replies so far.....dont mind if my posts are dumb, this is the first forum I've ever posted on lol

 

All that Roel said is true enough when viewed from a safe distance of 60+ years.
Interviews with former allied tankers confirm that the Tiger was feared far out of proportion to it's numbers or actual capabilities. Tiger Fever was one term coined for the near panic that could set in when reports (usually erroneous) of a Tiger ahead was passed back through the lines. Montgomery IIRC forbade the use of the word Tiger in intel reports that were disseminated to the men for that reason.

 

Gunter_Viezenz
The German were outnumbered in tanks in France.

 

True, however there the numbers were closer when you compare the French/Brit thanks that were actually useful (Somua S-35, Char B1 Bis , Mk IV Cruiser, Matilda II) and their numbers with the numbers of useful German tanks ( Pz III, Pz IV, 38T). In other words the large numbers of FT-17s, R-35s, and Pz I and II's didn't contribute a lot except for command tanks, recon tanks etc. And what the German tanks lacked in armor and gun power they made up for in superior training, mobility, reliability, communications and of course doctrine, in their employment.

 

The Pz.Kpfw.I and Pz.Kpfw.II weren't used at command or reconnaissance vehicles. They were the bulk of the active German armoured forces.

It is true, though, that the lack of communication (especially within the French army, having failed to take advantage of the military applications of the radio) and poor tactics for armoured warfare (being true for both the British and the French) were to blame.

What is quite interesting, is that Guderian in his Achtung Panzer! mentions a book written by de Gaulle in his bibliography, and that de Gaulle (and Waygand) conducted concentrated armoured counter-attacks, which threatened to cut off von Manstein's thrust to the channel. If the French and British senior officers had appreciated the nature of armoured warfare as suggested by the proponents of armoured warfare which had written much on the topic since World War I, Fall Gelb could very well have failed for the Germans.

 

In total numbers only. We researched this rather extensively on the WWII Online forums and found numerous sources that indicated that after the Poland campaign Pz Is were relegated to training , command and recon roles and after about May 10 IIRC Pz IIs were not used as frontline tanks. Keep in mind that the Pz I had only machine guns and the Pz II had only a 20mm main gun..pretty much useless in armor versus armor engagements.

 

Perhaps but the counterattacks weren't well cordinated nor followed up on. The biggest and most effective was the counterattack at Arras where French tanks and Matilda IIs drove back German units in panic, for a time. Artillery and 88mm guns were used to halt the attack and decimate the armored force. The German advance was only held up for a single day and the counterattack failed to achieve even it's first day objectives.

 

I saw a documentary about the invasion of France and they mentioned that there was a french tank that had superior armour, but the problem wqas the crew had too much multitasking. for example the driver also had a gun to side side, and he had to reload that gun. And they claim that the German had to get real close because everyone in the tank was so busy. Any truth to this?

 

Yes. The Somua S-35 and the Char B1bis had thicker armor and more powerful main guns than any of the German tanks in the battle of France however they both had one man turrets. The commander/gunner/ loader was unable to maintain situational awareness, direct the tank, aim and fire the gun accurately. The better trained german crews with 2 and 3 man turrets were able to out flank the more powerful(and slower) French tanks and fire into their sides and rear until they disabled them (usually unable to actually penetrate the Char B1bis thick armor for instance) though once they flanked they could fire into the radiator grill. Many French tanks were abandoned when the crew lost their nerve after being pelted by mutiple hits over and over. The French tanks also had poor communications, some still used flags to communicate with other tanks and others had radios but they were inoperable.

 

Very true, and this is also the reason for the whole Tiger myth. However, as I tried to make clear in my post, it was only the initial shock that gave the Tiger its halo of invincibility; after those first encounters, weapons were developed and introduced in vast numbers to counter it and they were succesful. When the Tiger is made to seem utterly invincible, this is always in comparison to the inadequate early Sherman with 75mm gun, but never in comparison to the likes of later Churchills, 76mm-armed Shermans, Sherman Fireflies, Comets or JS-2s.

Glad to be of help. I'm also happy to see you came to the right place to "look into the whole Tiger tank myth"; many another forum would tell you that this tank was some sort of Doomsday Device that wiped the floor with all Allied opposition.

Like Grieg already pointed out, the "thing" that the Tiger seems to have about it is simply the impact it had when first used; it left an impression which is yet to be completely erased by the facts. Game designers exploit the fact that the word "Tiger" rings a bell with most people due to the amount of air time it gets on websites and TV, and most often the associations people have with the vehicle are those of invincibility, of Tigerphobia and other things that were relevant in 1942 but no longer realistic after that.

 

Well have you heard of the game Close Combat? I have played all but the first and the latest version. Althoe the latest version is not really the same concept as the early games. Anyways what yopu said is not always true as in Close Combat 3 the russian Front a T-34 can easily whipe out 1 of my Tigers with a couple hits, 1 if it is lucky. Also the game steel panthers the Tiger tank is not indistructible.

on another note many allied soldiers often misidentified other german tanks for a Tiger. This may be why people think the Tiger tank was so common on the battlefield when in reality it mostly server on the eastert front and the number of the tank produed was under 1500.

 

Grieg
Don't know which sources were used for the numbers at WWIIOL, but the organization of a 1940-02-21 leichte Panzerkompanie included six Pz.Kpfw.II and four Pz.Kpfw.I used as regular tanks (with an additional two Pz.Kpfw.II in the Kompanie Truppe), and the mittlere Panzerkompanie for the same date had five Pz.Kpfw.II in the role as regular tanks, with one in the Kompanie Truppe.

554 Pz.Kpfw.I and 920 Pz.Kpfw.II were used for Fall Gelb at the initial invasion in 1940-05-10. This was a total of 24 % and 40 % respectively of the total strength, not including command vehicles, or about two thirds of the total tank strength. The unit with the highest concentration was 3. and 4. Panzer-Division, of whose tanks almost 80 % were Pz.Kpfw.I and Pz.Kpfw.II (for both divisions). The combat reports from Fall Gelb also clearly shows the use of Pz.Kpfw.Is and IIs.

It is true, that afterwards, the Pz.Kpfw.I was outphased, but as late at 1941-02-01, the Pz.Kpfw.II was still purposefully included in units, with the leichte Panzerzug, which had five Pz.Kpfw.II. The leichte Zug was included in both the leichte and the mittlere Panzerkompanie. This arrangement was still in use as of 1941-11-01.

In regards to the counter-attack, if the two counter-attacks had been coordinated, it is certainly possible that they woulc have been succesful. Again, this can be contributed to the lack of an efficient communications network within especially the French army.

 

Well it easy to understand the Tiger fever, this tank was very impressive and fearsome, in the heat of battle one might easily confuse it with the more common Pz IV (L) (Same box like appearance, very long gun).
Take a look at this picture form the book 'Tiger Ace' by Gary L.Simpson

 

Don't forget the strategy in using them, for example, tanks coming through a forest was not something either the English or Polish would use at the time.

 

Well the Polish had a very small number of tanks, they fought only a defensive battle when the were invaded and many of their ships were sent to the Bitish Iles and many pilots escape throught I beleive Romania ( not too sure thought) than made their way to France than finally evacuated to Britain.

Also I kep forgetting to mention the Tiger was a heavy tank and the sherman was a medium tank, therefore it would be like comparing a sherman to a panzer II.

Byt he why Im biast towards Germany not because of their equipment but the feelings I have towards the Germany, their engineering, tactics, strenght and historical events of the country.